Think and say what you want, but don't misrepresent someone else's words or deeds

[320 Years of History]

In the course of researching the nature and extent of Mrs. Clinton and Trump's words and deeds in response to the flooding in LA, I came across some writers who aim to belittle Mrs. Clinton by trying to make it look like she used her tweet about the LA flood victims as a way to piggy-back a fundraising plea.

You can see the attempt by a charlatan and cozener named Halley Croft, here:

View image on Twitter

Halley Croft @HalleyBorderCol
#Hillary uses disaster in Louisiana to raise money for herself. Disgraceful!
Asks for donations to her campaign!

6:13 PM - 19 Aug 2016

• 782782 Retweets; 529529 likes

Here is Mrs. Clinton's actual Facebook post:


Now one can see that Croft sloppily overlaid a graphic of a "donation box" onto Mrs. Clinton's post to make it look like she made offered her remarks as a way to also generate donations. If one clicks on the link to Mrs. Clinton's Facebook page, one will observe that there isn't even a "donation box" of any sort there. There's not even a request or suggestion about donations at all.

Screenshot of HRC's facebook page with the relevant post displayed.

As if that's not bad enough, the charlatan come cozener Croft's (ahem) "story" gets picked up by Hillary raises money off Louisiana flood crisis - The American Mirror.

Lastly, in case one wonders, I don't think this Halley Croft person -- who, per their Twitter page is a "South Carolinian, PhD Physics, Research, Entrepreneur" -- is a legit, at least as goes being Ph.D. in Physics, researcher and Entrepreneur." I could not find a dissertation, any published research, a Halley Croft listed in the SC business filings. That's why I call this person a charlatan. I may be right; I may be wrong, but I have at least shown why I think the person is a fraud.


So what's the point?

• The point is that it's fine that one despise a candidate -- any candidate -- that's one's right. What isn't one's right is to fabricate facts in an attempt to discredit the person.
• If one is going to accuse someone of being/thinking "whatever," at least have the decency to present the information that lead to on arriving at the conclusion that the person is/thinks "whatever."

 

[Mac1958]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

Misrepresentation is a very effective tactic. Who cares if it's honest. The primary goal is for "my side" to "win", not necessarily what is best for the country.
.

 

[Norman]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

Misrepresentation is a very effective tactic. Who cares if it's honest. The primary goal is for "my side" to "win", not necessarily what is best for the country.
.

Misrepresentation is a rhetorical tactic that EVERYONE engaged in a rhetorical war use. This is the primary and only tactic of the left. Its effectiveness can't be denied while the damage it causes is insurmountable, in the way of any civilized society as any war.

It would be a pleasure if we could actually go and debate the actual issues, but the problem is, the regressive left would lose every single issue and be laughed out immediately. They do not understand what facts, reason or evidence are, in fact they don't even believe truth exists. So rhetorical war it is going to be, and one in which it's vital to do whatever it takes to destroy as many of these clowns as possible. Remember, that is the tactic they are using. You treat other as they treat you.

 

[Mac1958]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

Misrepresentation is a very effective tactic. Who cares if it's honest. The primary goal is for "my side" to "win", not necessarily what is best for the country.
.

Misrepresentation is a rhetorical tactic that EVERYONE engaged in a rhetorical war use. This is the primary and only tactic of the left. Its effectiveness can't be denied while the damage it causes is insurmountable, in the way of any civilized society as any war.

It would be a pleasure if we could actually go and debate the actual issues, but the problem is, the regressive left would lose every single issue and be laughed out immediately. So rhetorical war it is going to be, and one in which it's vital to do whatever it takes to destroy as many of these clowns as possible. Remember, that is the tactic they are using. You treat other as they treat you.

It seems to me that if someone has to lie to make a point, they're not terribly confident in their point.

I don't see much distinction in the two sides in terms of misrepresentation, however - the two sides are very similar in their behaviors.
.

 

[Norman]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

Misrepresentation is a very effective tactic. Who cares if it's honest. The primary goal is for "my side" to "win", not necessarily what is best for the country.
.

Misrepresentation is a rhetorical tactic that EVERYONE engaged in a rhetorical war use. This is the primary and only tactic of the left. Its effectiveness can't be denied while the damage it causes is insurmountable, in the way of any civilized society as any war.

It would be a pleasure if we could actually go and debate the actual issues, but the problem is, the regressive left would lose every single issue and be laughed out immediately. So rhetorical war it is going to be, and one in which it's vital to do whatever it takes to destroy as many of these clowns as possible. Remember, that is the tactic they are using. You treat other as they treat you.

It seems to me that if someone has to lie to make a point, they're not terribly confident in their point.

I don't see much distinction in the two sides in terms of misrepresentation, however - the two sides are very similar in their behaviors.
.

What does it matter if one is confident in their point or not? Hillary Clinton does not believe a word she says, yet she is at the top of the world running for the president. Do you start to get it now? Her rhetoric and lies have worked, and that is all that matters...

Without all the dirty tricks she would likely be working as a janitor right now.

 

[Mac1958]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

Misrepresentation is a very effective tactic. Who cares if it's honest. The primary goal is for "my side" to "win", not necessarily what is best for the country.
.

Misrepresentation is a rhetorical tactic that EVERYONE engaged in a rhetorical war use. This is the primary and only tactic of the left. Its effectiveness can't be denied while the damage it causes is insurmountable, in the way of any civilized society as any war.

It would be a pleasure if we could actually go and debate the actual issues, but the problem is, the regressive left would lose every single issue and be laughed out immediately. So rhetorical war it is going to be, and one in which it's vital to do whatever it takes to destroy as many of these clowns as possible. Remember, that is the tactic they are using. You treat other as they treat you.

It seems to me that if someone has to lie to make a point, they're not terribly confident in their point.

I don't see much distinction in the two sides in terms of misrepresentation, however - the two sides are very similar in their behaviors.
.

What does it matter if one is confident in their point or not? Hillary Clinton does not believe a word she says, yet she is at the top of the world running for the president. Do you start to get it now? Her rhetoric and lies have worked, and that is all that matters...

Without all the dirty tricks she would likely be working as a janitor right now.

That's what I said - winning is all that matters for partisans.

So dishonesty is merely a tool.
.

 

[320 Years of History]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

I suppose so....I don't really know why.

Literally billions of people essentially attest to being inveterate partisans all the time with regard to a cosmic Jewish zombie that grants immortality, if one ‘symbolically’ eats his flesh and telepathically tells him one accepts him as one's master, so he can rid an evil embedded in mans soul because a rib-woman was tricked into eating a magic apple by a talking snake. Every day, millions upon millions profess to believing that and nothing anyone else says will alter their belief. Can one be any more partisan than that?

But we're talking about politics here. If one is willing to openly admit to the preceding form of partisanship, surely it can't take much to just be an honest political partisan. Were I of a mind to be a political partisan, I would have zero difficulty being so and never misrepresenting the truth or myself. All I'd need to say is, "I don't care what s/he said/did. I do/don't like him/her, I'm going to/not going to support them, and that's that. Go talk to someone who cares what you have to say because I have grass I need to watch grow."

Frankly, just being forthright in that way would save a whole lot of folks a whole lot of time, money and heartache. Hell, it may even dramatically reduce the cost of election campaigns. Funny how that might work...The simple truth used as an efficient, effective and affordable method of campaign finance reform. I gotta say, that truth thing is good for accomplishing so many different objectives. Wonder why that is???

 

[SuperDemocrat]

THank God we have people who correct that. You are right. Sometimes things get exagerated and are made to appear what they are not.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

In the course of researching the nature and extent of Mrs. Clinton and Trump's words and deeds in response to the flooding in LA, I came across some writers who aim to belittle Mrs. Clinton by trying to make it look like she used her tweet about the LA flood victims as a way to piggy-back a fundraising plea.

You can see the attempt by a charlatan and cozener named Halley Croft, here:

View image on Twitter

Halley Croft @HalleyBorderCol
#Hillary uses disaster in Louisiana to raise money for herself. Disgraceful!
Asks for donations to her campaign!

6:13 PM - 19 Aug 2016

• 782782 Retweets; 529529 likes

Here is Mrs. Clinton's actual Facebook post:


Now one can see that Croft sloppily overlaid a graphic of a "donation box" onto Mrs. Clinton's post to make it look like she made offered her remarks as a way to also generate donations. If one clicks on the link to Mrs. Clinton's Facebook page, one will observe that there isn't even a "donation box" of any sort there. There's not even a request or suggestion about donations at all.

Screenshot of HRC's facebook page with the relevant post displayed.

View attachment 87185


As if that's not bad enough, the charlatan come cozener Croft's (ahem) "story" gets picked up by Hillary raises money off Louisiana flood crisis - The American Mirror.

Lastly, in case one wonders, I don't think this Halley Croft person -- who, per their Twitter page is a "South Carolinian, PhD Physics, Research, Entrepreneur" -- is a legit, at least as goes being Ph.D. in Physics, researcher and Entrepreneur." I could not find a dissertation, any published research, a Halley Croft listed in the SC business filings. That's why I call this person a charlatan. I may be right; I may be wrong, but I have at least shown why I think the person is a fraud.


So what's the point?

• The point is that it's fine that one despise a candidate -- any candidate -- that's one's right. What isn't one's right is to fabricate facts in an attempt to discredit the person.
• If one is going to accuse someone of being/thinking "whatever," at least have the decency to present the information that lead to on arriving at the conclusion that the person is/thinks "whatever."

Are you blind? There was a $10 donation button on the Twitter page asking them to join with 2 million other donors.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

Misrepresentation is a very effective tactic. Who cares if it's honest. The primary goal is for "my side" to "win", not necessarily what is best for the country.
.

Trump doesn't have to misrepresent Hillary. None of us do. We need only use the exact words of her and any democrat.

"We need universal healthcare." Go ahead bitch, say it in a debate, out loud.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

I suppose so....I don't really know why.

Literally billions of people essentially attest to being inveterate partisans all the time with regard to a cosmic Jewish zombie that grants immortality, if one ‘symbolically’ eats his flesh and telepathically tells him one accepts him as one's master, so he can rid an evil embedded in mans soul because a rib-woman was tricked into eating a magic apple by a talking snake. Every day, millions upon millions profess to believing that and nothing anyone else says will alter their belief. Can one be any more partisan than that?

But we're talking about politics here. If one is willing to openly admit to the preceding form of partisanship, surely it can't take much to just be an honest political partisan. Were I of a mind to be a political partisan, I would have zero difficulty being so and never misrepresenting the truth or myself. All I'd need to say is, "I don't care what s/he said/did. I do/don't like him/her, I'm going to/not going to support them, and that's that. Go talk to someone who cares what you have to say because I have grass I need to watch grow."

Frankly, just being forthright in that way would save a whole lot of folks a whole lot of time, money and heartache. Hell, it may even dramatically reduce the cost of election campaigns. Funny how that might work...The simple truth used as an efficient, effective and affordable method of campaign finance reform. I gotta say, that truth thing is good for accomplishing so many different objectives. Wonder why that is???

You people can't seem to go a day without insulting Christian believers with this blasphemous "Jewish Zombie" shit you vomit out of the blue. I've decided that nothing you have to say is worth reading anymore. So I'm going to shut you up. I won't be listening to your trash talk anymore: here or in Heaven.

 

[320 Years of History]

In the course of researching the nature and extent of Mrs. Clinton and Trump's words and deeds in response to the flooding in LA, I came across some writers who aim to belittle Mrs. Clinton by trying to make it look like she used her tweet about the LA flood victims as a way to piggy-back a fundraising plea.

You can see the attempt by a charlatan and cozener named Halley Croft, here:

View image on Twitter

Halley Croft @HalleyBorderCol
#Hillary uses disaster in Louisiana to raise money for herself. Disgraceful!
Asks for donations to her campaign!

6:13 PM - 19 Aug 2016

• 782782 Retweets; 529529 likes

Here is Mrs. Clinton's actual Facebook post:


Now one can see that Croft sloppily overlaid a graphic of a "donation box" onto Mrs. Clinton's post to make it look like she made offered her remarks as a way to also generate donations. If one clicks on the link to Mrs. Clinton's Facebook page, one will observe that there isn't even a "donation box" of any sort there. There's not even a request or suggestion about donations at all.

Screenshot of HRC's facebook page with the relevant post displayed.

View attachment 87185


As if that's not bad enough, the charlatan come cozener Croft's (ahem) "story" gets picked up by Hillary raises money off Louisiana flood crisis - The American Mirror.

Lastly, in case one wonders, I don't think this Halley Croft person -- who, per their Twitter page is a "South Carolinian, PhD Physics, Research, Entrepreneur" -- is a legit, at least as goes being Ph.D. in Physics, researcher and Entrepreneur." I could not find a dissertation, any published research, a Halley Croft listed in the SC business filings. That's why I call this person a charlatan. I may be right; I may be wrong, but I have at least shown why I think the person is a fraud.


So what's the point?

• The point is that it's fine that one despise a candidate -- any candidate -- that's one's right. What isn't one's right is to fabricate facts in an attempt to discredit the person.
• If one is going to accuse someone of being/thinking "whatever," at least have the decency to present the information that lead to on arriving at the conclusion that the person is/thinks "whatever."

Are you blind? There was a $10 donation button on the Twitter page asking them to join with 2 million other donors.

Red:
Are you blind? Did you not notice that Mrs. Clinton's statement wasn't posted on Twitter? Doesn't Twitter have a character limit of something around 140 or so characters? Did you click on the links I included in the OP so you can to to Mrs. Clinton's actual Facebook post and see it for yourself? Did you not notice that the donation remarks come from something that is a Robby Mook account of some sort, not a Hillary Clinton account, presumably Twitter?

 

[320 Years of History]

The misrepresentation of others' words and deeds is essentially at the heart of contemporary partisan political discourse on both sides.

It's one of the primary reasons partisans deserve and have no credibility.

I suppose so....I don't really know why.

Literally billions of people essentially attest to being inveterate partisans all the time with regard to a cosmic Jewish zombie that grants immortality, if one ‘symbolically’ eats his flesh and telepathically tells him one accepts him as one's master, so he can rid an evil embedded in mans soul because a rib-woman was tricked into eating a magic apple by a talking snake. Every day, millions upon millions profess to believing that and nothing anyone else says will alter their belief. Can one be any more partisan than that?

But we're talking about politics here. If one is willing to openly admit to the preceding form of partisanship, surely it can't take much to just be an honest political partisan. Were I of a mind to be a political partisan, I would have zero difficulty being so and never misrepresenting the truth or myself. All I'd need to say is, "I don't care what s/he said/did. I do/don't like him/her, I'm going to/not going to support them, and that's that. Go talk to someone who cares what you have to say because I have grass I need to watch grow."

Frankly, just being forthright in that way would save a whole lot of folks a whole lot of time, money and heartache. Hell, it may even dramatically reduce the cost of election campaigns. Funny how that might work...The simple truth used as an efficient, effective and affordable method of campaign finance reform. I gotta say, that truth thing is good for accomplishing so many different objectives. Wonder why that is???

You people can't seem to go a day without insulting Christian believers with this blasphemous "Jewish Zombie" shit you vomit out of the blue. I've decided that nothing you have to say is worth reading anymore. So I'm going to shut you up. I won't be listening to your trash talk anymore: here or in Heaven.

• Whomever you mean by "you people" I'm not among them.
• The blasphemous quality of the description is not an immutably objective reality.
• I don't mind at all that you don't any longer care to read my posts. Clearly you are not among their intended audience, so your not reading them is problematic for neither you nor me. It may well be what's best for both of us. We'll each find out soon enough.